by Jack Grimme, Contributing Writer
2024 saw the release of prolific director Clint Eastwood’s 45th, and potentially final, feature film Juror #2. Nicholas Hoult partnered with the veteran filmmaker, taking the lead as the titular juror, Justin Kemp, a recovering alcoholic and expecting father who is summoned to weigh in on the semi-mysterious circumstances surrounding the death of a young woman. As the defense and prosecution unveil their scandalous arguments, Justin starts to believe he may be more involved in the case than a juror should be. Toni Collette, J.K. Simmons, Zoey Deutch and a slew of other character actors round out the cast of this legal drama that harkens back to a cinematic genre that is increasingly rare in the modern landscape.
The moral dilemma at the heart of this case is far and away the most compelling piece of the story. You will undoubtedly find yourself in the shoes of every perspective offered by the film, and most likely hopelessly struggle to find a clear path forward. The scenario posed by Eastwood and writer Jonathan A. Abrams expertly invites the audience to ask a million questions that may or may not be answered, or even asked on screen. The plotting is slow, with little to no action, but the inherent question guiding the plot will leave you on the edge of your seat, pining for more details.
The effect of the film is similarly expanded by each side character’s careful and nuanced perspective. Sure, some of the dialogue is a little stiff, and the performances don’t always live up to the standard set by Holt and Collette, but the team behind the scenes manages to make each character important and clearly defined, giving every potential audience member a relatable perspective to anchor on. Every possible opinion on the core conceit is given full-throated justification and scathing condemnation in a way that does the murky conundrum justice. Just when you think you have the tools to land on a verdict, a new character’s insight demands further reflection.
As mentioned earlier, the film is slightly hindered by a handful of technical issues. Several side characters offer performances that make the film feel like a Hallmark release. And while the characters are crucial for exploring the gravity of the conflict, they could have approached the ideas in a more tactful way. Some moments feel forced and clumsy, which hinders the final punch, because a movie like this depends on sincerity and humanity. When the characters start broaching topics in ways that feel unnatural or plot-driven, the audience may start to question the authenticity of the project.
Aside from those complaints, it is hard to find any fundamental faults in the film. It is clear that this project was piloted by one of the most competent and consistent creators in the scene. The pacing carefully unspools the story in a way that keeps the audience hooked and invested in every move made by the protagonist. It packs a relatively long period of time into a shorter picture, while still managing to make each detail meaningful and informative of character.
The final qualm I had with the film revolves around the ending. Without treading into spoilers, I will say that the conclusion is relatively ambiguous. It certainly implies the next moves of some of our key players, but opts to not explore how certain elements unfold. Many projects are made by the confident omission of clear answers, and I think this film in particular argues that cut-and-dry conclusions are often impossible to obtain. However, the actual conversation this movie is having is so unique and complicated that I found it very hard to play the rest of the story out in my head in a meaningful way. The question at the heart of the story is important and relevant to the lives of many who become entangled in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, it is a question that is so hard to reckon with that these conflicts are often left unaddressed. So much so that I truly can’t imagine how this story might progress, but I am incredibly interested in the answer. I understand that including a more clear result might undercut the theme, but the story is slightly unsatisfying with its current conclusion. Admittedly, many people love these ambiguous endings. If you are one of those people, I recommend this release with virtually no hesitation. However, if you prefer a story to ask a question and suggest steps to remedy the conflict as well, you might have to pair this watch with an independent study on the nuances of the American judicial system.
Regardless of the verdict, it is undeniable that Warner Bros. Pictures deserve a sentence for their abysmal marketing and release strategy, which saw the film in fewer than 50 theaters across the United States, before it was unceremoniously dropped on Max. It is hard to view the strange debut of this project as anything other than outright disrespect towards one of the industry’s most impactful minds.
Rating: High Side of Liked It
Juror #2 is currently streaming on Max
You can read more from Jack Grimme, and follow him on Twitter, Instagram, and Letterboxd